|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
A. Dwight Pettit: Civil Rights Champion Says Maryland Concealed Weapon Law Discriminates Against Blacks
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It’s no secret that crime rates in Baltimore are at all-time highs. With more that 320 murders this year and luckless tourists being beaten in the streets, the illusion of safety conjured with the whimsical moniker “Charm City” has given way to “Murdermore.” City residents are mortified as they consider the almost nightly bloodbath, and a beleaguered police department is in no position to assuage their fears. The streets – and in many cases even the family homes – are simply not safe. But try to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection in Baltimore and you’ll wonder whose side Maryland lawmakers are on. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/6/2017)
|
Gun control discriminates against blacks?
Well, that's what gun control has always been intended to do in this country.
And the gun controllers go around calling their opponents racist...I call it projection when racists call everybody else racist. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
